CASE NO: 96-WPC-0001
Fred Odom
Complainant
v.
Anchor Lithkemko/International Paper
Respondent
ORDER ON DISCOVERY
Pending are five discovery-related motions filed[1] by the
parties. Due to the fast approaching trial date of January 3,
1996, I find it appropriate, for the purpose of resolution of
same, to rule promptly thereon.
1. Complainant moves to compel Respondents' responses to
certain interrogatories[2] . I find that interrogatories
numbered 2, 5, 10, 11, 12, 18, and 21 have been adequately
responded to by Respondents. As to interrogatories numbered 3,
4, and 15, Respondents' objections are overruled and Respondents
are directed to fully respond to same. As to interrogatories
numbered 8, 13 and 23, I find that Respondents have failed to
fully respond, and direct full response thereto. As to
interrogatories numbered 14 and 16, Respondents' objections are
sustained. As to interrogatory numbered 24, I find that
Respondents have failed to respond, that their objection is
overruled, and that they shall respond thereto. As to
interrogatory numbered 25, I find that Respondents have failed to
respond, and shall respond thereto.
2. Complainant moves also to compel Respondents' production
of certain documents. Complainant fails to specify which of his
[PAGE 2]
requests have not been complied with[3] , and I therefore
interpret this motion to be directed at those requests for
production objected to by Respondents. As to requests numbered
5, 20, 24, 29, 31 and 32, Respondents' objections are sustained.
As to requests numbered 25, 30, 33 and 36, Respondents'
objections are overruled, and Respondents are directed to produce
such documents.
Respondent's shall comply with the foregoing directions to
respond to interrogatories and to produce documents on or
before December 22, 1995.
3. Respondents seek a protective order generally governing
the process by which certain documents and their contents are to
be treated in this proceeding in order to protect certain
asserted "confidentiality." First, I find that none of the
documents requested by Complainant of Respondents in respect of
which I have heretofore directed production, appear to relate to
Respondents' concern as to "confidentiality." Moreover, even if
I were disposed to recognize such claim of "confidentiality",
Respondents fail to specify which particular documents requested
run afoul, in its view, of such "confidentiality." For these
reasons, Respondents' motion for protective order is
DENIED.
4. Complainant's motion to enter Respondents' premises and
videotape certain things and areas is DENIED. Such entry
and videotaping has not been shown to be potentially productive
of other than marginally probative evidence[4] , otherwise
obtainable by other means, e.g., testimony, etc. Moreover, such
entry and inspection by Complainant of "...hard drives, file
servers, floppy disk..."[5] appears to invite disruption of
ongoing business operations of Respondents.
5. Finally, Complainant fails to establish a sufficient
basis underlying his motion for a protective order permitting
redaction of the names and addresses of employers involved in
Complainant's job search after his termination from Respondents' employ. In my judgment, the asserted support for the relief
requested falls short of that quantum of adequate proof of
prospective harm, especially in light of the evident relevance of
this information to Respondents' defense to Complainant's damage
claim in this regard.
RALPH A. ROMANO
[PAGE 3]
Administrative Law Judge
Dated: December 14, 1995
Camden, New Jersey
[ENDNOTES]
[1] These motions have been lodged by facsimile transmissions.
[2] Numbered "2-5, 8, 10, 11-16, 18, 21, 23-25." See pg. 1
"Emergency Motion to Compel..." dated December 12, 1995.
[3] Except to note that Respondents "...have objected to
providing vast categories of documents..." (pg. 1, motion noted
at ftn1 supra)
[4] Considering the various burdens of proof in this type of
proceeding.
[5] Presumably, computers and related equipment.
